Food stamps do little to alleviate hunger; increase government dependence.

Before listening to the coming outcry that will claim the proposed cuts will lead to mass starvation and other calamities, recall that as recently as 2000, this program cost just $18 billion annually and covered just 17 million Americans. Today, roughly 48 million Americans receive food stamps at a cost of almost $83 billion per year.

...

For all the hullabaloo surrounding food stamps, one might think they're a worthwhile investment. Unfortunately, no one is really sure about that. In fact, the Government Accountability Office found that “the literature is inconclusive regarding whether SNAP alleviates hunger and malnutrition for low-income households.” Similarly, a study for the U.S. Department of Agriculture found for nearly all vitamins, minerals and macronutrients assessed, the dietary intake among SNAP participants was comparable to that of nonparticipants.

While food stamps may do little to alleviate hunger, they do appear to increase government dependency. Nearly 56 percent of SNAP households are on the program for five years or longer, suggesting that the program is no longer a temporary safety net but increasingly is becoming a way of life.

While food stamps may do little to alleviate hunger, they do appear to increase government dependency. Nearly 56 percent of SNAP households are on the program for five years or longer, suggesting that the program is no longer a temporary safety net but increasingly is becoming a way of life.

This is strictly the author's extrapolation from the data. "Appear" is a weasel word, which are pretty prevalent in this piece.

So: How does that rate compare to the rate prior to the recession? Or at various times in SNAP's existence? How does the turnover rate track with the unemployment rate, over time? Was it ever a "temporary safety net," as this passage indicates? Was it ever meant to be a "temporary safety net"? Are food stamps really to blame for chronic dependence, as Charles Tanner gleefully concludes, or are they serving their purpose wonderfully, except supplementary programs like job training and birth control education are non-existent or inadequate?

I also have no idea what this means:

Similarly, a study for the U.S. Department of Agriculture found for nearly all vitamins, minerals and macronutrients assessed, the dietary intake among SNAP participants was comparable to that of nonparticipants.

What is a "nonparticipant"? I'm a nonparticipant. Are they being compared to people like me? If that is the case, SNAP advocates should be spiking the football, not Michael Tanner, extremely concered columnist at Crain's Chicago Business. Or, rather, is the comparison among socioeconomic equals who, for whatever reason, have opted out of SNAP? That sentence makes zero sense. It contains zero context. He also includes the weasel phrase "nearly all." What does "nearly all" mean? Ninety percent? Eighty percent? And what does "comparable" mean?

Further, should this really be the end of the comparison between participants and non-participants, assuming we're comparing apples to apples and not apples to Mark Zuckerberg? OK, participants and non-participants eat the same. Are they clothed the same? Are they sheltered the same? Do participants have more books? Do they have heat in the winter? Do they live in safer neighborhoods? Is SNAP freeing up resources for other necessities? If so, then it's a victory, right?

There are no citations to any of this rock-solid evidence that Michael Tanner rolls out. But I suppose it plays well with those predisposed to blame poor people for being poor. Which means it fulfilled its purpose.

And I guess you made this post with SnapChat, as I didn't hop on fast enough to see your boner pic. You're usually a good critical thinker, but Michael Tanner wrote a few slipshod sentences, with yawning holes, that happened to dovetail with your preconceived ideals. And you ran with it.

Take away food stamps tomorrow. OK. After your Rush Limbaugh party, what do we do now? How is poverty in any way fixed? Where do the former participants go to find these jobs that do not exist any more in the United States? Where do they find the training to become skilled employees in the 21st century economy so that they can find and land jobs that do exist? How do they afford the training? How do they even hear about the training? How do they beat out the 200 college graduates who also apply for the position once they obtain their training? How, how, how?

Before listening to the coming outcry that will claim the proposed cuts will lead to mass starvation and other calamities, recall that as recently as 2000, this program cost just $18 billion annually and covered just 17 million Americans. Today, roughly 48 million Americans receive food stamps at a cost of almost $83 billion per year.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If you can look at this fact and thing "Damn, must be people trying to screw over the system" and not "Damn, our economy is getting screwed up by wealth equality," then you should be a tiny bit ashamed of yourself. Or more than a tiny bit.

This is one of these issues - like the Kennedy assassination, to cross-thread - where it is almost impossible to find straight answers in a cursory Google-aided investigation, because almost every scrap of information out there has been filtered through a partisan prism.

While food stamps may do little to alleviate hunger, they do appear to increase government dependency. Nearly 56 percent of SNAP households are on the program for five years or longer, suggesting that the program is no longer a temporary safety net but increasingly is becoming a way of life.

This is strictly the author's extrapolation from the data. "Appear" is a weasel word, which are pretty prevalent in this piece.

Click to expand...

Completely fair criticism.

I think it's also fair to point out that when someone is on a social services program for longer than five years, it's not being used as a safety net, which is what most people do support. But, the author needs to do a better job showing how the program itself has contributed to this.

RickStain said:

If you can look at this fact and thing "Damn, must be people trying to screw over the system" and not "Damn, our economy is getting screwed up by wealth equality," then you should be a tiny bit ashamed of yourself. Or more than a tiny bit.

Click to expand...

I don't think people are "screwing" the system as much as I think they are just taking what is available to them, for as long as is possible. And, there has been a conscious effort to expand the program to include more people.

I think it is fair to look at whether the program actually helps people.

I think it's also fair to point out that when someone is on a social services program for longer than five years, it's not being used as a safety net, which is what most people do support.

Click to expand...

Dick Whitman said:

Take away food stamps tomorrow. OK. ... How is poverty in any way fixed? Where do the former participants go to find these jobs that do not exist any more in the United States? Where do they find the training to become skilled employees in the 21st century economy so that they can find and land jobs that do exist? How do they afford the training? How do they even hear about the training? How do they beat out the 200 college graduates who also apply for the position once they obtain their training? How, how, how?